Innovation in College Media

UPDATE: Be sure and check out Griffin's comments at the bottom of this post. He raises a couple of good issues, but fails to sway me.

On a different note, a response: Chip Griffin takes up the case of using pre-roll advertisements around video of disturbing news items, mentioning that we were offended with the pre-roll ads that appeared around some of the video footage from the Va. Tech shooting tragedy. Griffin makes the argument that news orgs need to make money, and serving pre-roll ads make money.

As I noted in the original post, I understand the need to make money from online video. I understand that such video costs money to host. And I'm not opposed to any ads in the context of a tragedy. But there should be some level of understanding on the part of media organizations about the types of ads that play around particularly graphic, particularly tragic video.

The first ad I mentioned was a "make your own M&M" ad, which played at the front of a cell phone video of shots being fired - shots that took the lives of 32 people. The second was an ad for Microsoft's software - right before video footage of a deranged psychopath spewing hate. Does an advertiser want their carefully crafted message singing the praises of their product sandwiched next to such video? I wouldn't think so.

A possible solution? Get the ad department to work quickly in such a situation to tailor some low-key contextual ads that don't denigrate the seriousness of the video. Imagine a 15-second pre-roll ad that featured a muted background with some low-key music and a message of condolence from the advertiser - "(insert advertiser name here) - our hearts are with the Va. Tech community (or whomever) during this time of tragedy."

The ends are met: the advertiser gets their brand out, but in a way that doesn't grate against the seriousness of the situation. And they get some good PR out of being sensitive. And the media org gets paid.